Mideast Assembly Thread

[big bad fab]

AYE

[Kaine for Senate '18]

NAY

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

AYE

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

On the final vote for Growth. In. Jobs. And. New. Economy. (GI JANE):

The AYEs are 3, and the NAYs are 2.  The AYEs have it.  The bill is transmitted to the Governor for his veto or signature.


The following is now brought up for debate (so don't vote on this one just yet, Happy Warrior ):

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[California8429]

I'm for this bill

[HappyWarrior]

My current budget creation bill, which will be a constitutional amendment:

Article VIII-Regional Budget

Section 1: Budgetary Procedure

1.  During each Gubernatorial term a budget shall be passed by the Assembly in regards to Regional spending
2.  This budget shall include all regional spending which is not specifically addressed and set by the present or a previous Assembly
3.  All budgets should also address tax rates in the Mideast region.

This is the present incarnation, I am planning to add to this.  At least a second section.  This is just what I have at the moment.

[Badger]

On the final vote for Growth. In. Jobs. And. New. Economy. (GI JANE):

The AYEs are 3, and the NAYs are 2.  The AYEs have it.  The bill is transmitted to the Governor for his veto or signature.

Unaffordable and goes way overboard in limiting necessary government services during the midst of a recession. I sincerely hope the Governor will veto this and return it to the Assembly for amendment into a more affordable measure.

[HappyWarrior]

On the final vote for Growth. In. Jobs. And. New. Economy. (GI JANE):

The AYEs are 3, and the NAYs are 2.  The AYEs have it.  The bill is transmitted to the Governor for his veto or signature.

Unaffordable and goes way overboard in limiting necessary government services during the midst of a recession. I sincerely hope the Governor will veto this and return it to the Assembly for amendment into a more affordable measure.

[big bad fab]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Mr. Speaker, my fellow Assemblymen,

I won't be very long, since my aim is clear: I intend to erase the words "after the first trimester of the pregnancy".

If the life starts with the conception, abortion should be illegal from the beginning, with some due exceptions.

If it doesn't, we can only have two criterias: life begins with birth and, in this case, it should be possible to abort until some hours before birth; life begins when the child is "livable", but this can only be determined after the birth (when it's too late to abort), since, medically, you cannot define an "age" valid for every child.

Thanks for your attention.

[Badger]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Mr. Speaker, my fellow Assemblymen,

I won't be very long, since my aim is clear: I intend to erase the words "after the first trimester of the pregnancy".

If the life starts with the conception, abortion should be illegal from the beginning, with some due exceptions.

If it doesn't, we can only have two criterias: life begins with birth and, in this case, it should be possible to abort until some hours before birth; life begins when the child is "livable", but this can only be determined after the birth (when it's too late to abort), since, medically, you cannot define an "age" valid for every child.

Thanks for your attention.

I take it you're fine with likewise outlwaing RU-486 and other non-surgical methoids of terminating pregnancy?

[big bad fab]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Mr. Speaker, my fellow Assemblymen,

I won't be very long, since my aim is clear: I intend to erase the words "after the first trimester of the pregnancy".

If the life starts with the conception, abortion should be illegal from the beginning, with some due exceptions.

If it doesn't, we can only have two criterias: life begins with birth and, in this case, it should be possible to abort until some hours before birth; life begins when the child is "livable", but this can only be determined after the birth (when it's too late to abort), since, medically, you cannot define an "age" valid for every child.

Thanks for your attention.

I take it you're fine with likewise outlwaing RU-486 and other non-surgical methoids of terminating pregnancy?

Contrary to the way they are "sold", they are indeed abortive tools, not contraceptive ones.
I know all the arguments about "it's better to abort than to have unwanted pregnancies" and "it's better to abort in safe hospitals rather than to hide". But we already have many tools and policies that are here to help women in these difficult situations and, after births, if things don't settle, to help other parents to adopt.
And our legislation (in Atlasia and in the Mideast) is already full of measures on preventing pregnancies and easing the use of contraceptives. More can always be done, but that's a very good basis.

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

Whereas no debate has taken place in the last 24 hours, the following legislation is now up for a vote.  This will be a 48 hour vote:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

AYE

[Kaine for Senate '18]

NAY.

[California8429]

AYE

[HappyWarrior]

ABSTAIN

[big bad fab]

AYE

[Badger]

ABSTAIN

1 year to 6 months jail for any woman choosing to terminate a pregnancy for any reason other than rape or threat of her life? Plus a potential 6 digit fine?

BOOOO!!!!!!!!

EDIT: That's meant for all aye votes here, (though I'm not happy about Hap's abstaining either).

[tmthforu94]

AYE

AYE

AYE

Thank you!

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

On the final vote for the Mideast Abortion III Bill:

The AYEs are 3, and the NAYs are 1, with 1 abstention.  The AYEs have it.  The bill is transmitted to the Governor for his veto or signature.

[Kaine for Senate '18]

I urge the Governor to veto this legislation; it shows a complete disregard for a woman's fundamental right to control her reproductive organs.

[Badger]

I urge the Governor to veto this legislation; it shows a complete disregard for a woman's fundamental right to control her reproductive organs.

^^^^ this.

Prison for inducing an early term abortion? Even with RU-486 days later when it's a zygote? C'mon!

[Hash]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

This is crap. I'd rather live in the Northeast than a moralfag region.

[California8429]

As one of my last pushes as a Assemblyman.... I urge the Governor to sign this piece of legislation. We do have rights, and so do those that are not yet out of the womb. We cannot simply throw their rights and lives out simply because they cannot speak against us as we all can to one another. These children can be the next doctors, lawyers, statesmen, inventors...they may be the one to cure cancer, or get the region to run on algae, or help get millions back on their feet. It is more important to care for them and protect them then others because they do not have the ability yet to do so themselves.

I believe those who have a child when it doesn't involve rape or incest should face up to their actions unless something like the life or health of the mother is at stake. There is adoption, there are families who cannot have kids and families who would want to bring in a new joy in their life. It is not fair to them that we decide to terminate their life without their consent or say.

Those who lift themselves up are the most powerful and influential figures of our time. We should not allow abortion to be used freely just because we can. We have the ability destroy lives, but we choose not to. Why should this be thought any differently? Compassion, love and the hard road create the greatest people.
I urge the Governor to let this become law.

[Badger]

There's no compassion in sending a woman to prison for controlling her own reproduction, especially in the first trimester of pregnancy. Much more could be done to stop abortion by encouraging proper use of birth control. Just such a measure was passed last year by this Assembly. That measure was opposed by then Gov. Inks, and citizens Fab and True Con, the former two who supported passing this abortion ban. That is frankly a topsy-turvey sense of priorities.

This measure is highly inconsistent with the mantra of fighting the encroachment of "overreaching big government". Apparently that only applies to important "rights" like paying less taxes, cutting social programs, and reducing health, safety and consumer protection regulations on business, not minor little things like control of ones own uterus.

It's worth noting that Section 5 of the recently passed GI Jane bill (why that name, BTW?)
https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=82716.msg2490501#msg2490501
would only increase the financial pressures on pregnant women considering abortion, thus increasing the likelihood of such a tragic outcome.

Holy Moly! I just reread that section and realized we all missed something BIG. Section 5's requirement of able-bodied "welfare" recipients (would that include regional-funded student aid? The language here doesn't exclude it, so.....) performing 40 hours a week of work, etc. only credits hours spent in education for that "to receive a GED". Not training for an associate, bachelors or advanced degree---just GED courses. Yes, the bill allows 4 years for anyone attending "any" level of education, but what about students who are still working on their bachelor's or an advanced degree after 4 years and collecting food stamps to feed their family in the process? It's not unlikely a person in that situation will need more then 4 years to obtain a bachelors, even assuming they start classes the day they begin collecting food stamps or Medicaid (that's "welfare" too), and almost guaranteed to take more than 4 years for an advanced degree.

So as it stands someone who after 4 years of collecting food stamps and/or medicaid while successfully going to college will be required to start also working full time flipping burgers or picking up trash on the highway. Unless they're willing to deprive their family of food and medical insurance, this would almost certainly require them to drop out of college--even a Master's Degree program--to join the Wal-Mart wage ghetto, or at least dramatically reduce the time left for education and greatly extend the time needed to finish that degree--if they ever finish at all.

Surely this isn't what even the proponents of this bill intended? How is it in any way to the region's benefit to so strongly push active college students towards dropping out of school to get a low wage job or do mandatory community service?  It doesn't take an economist to understand that a college degree greatly increases a person's earning ability, thus greatly increasing the taxes that person will pay throughout their life and dwarfing any minor immediate savings from kicking them off food stamps immediately.

Yet another problem here arises with the apparently unalterable requirement of "40 hours per week" of "education". Even IF this bill allowed all levels of education to count towards this requirement, the plain language seems to mandate 40 class hours per week. Every college student here knows that for every hour spent in the college classroom 2-3 hours are spent outside class studying, researching, writing, etc. Unfortunately the statute's language is rather inflexible in mandating "40 hours a week of...education" without allowance for necessary time for out-of-class work, and even class valedictorians can't handle a course schedule with 40 hours a week in class. Again, I have to believe this is simply an oversight even the bill's supporters missed.

Unfortunately the bill is passed and can't be amended until when and if vetoed by the governor and returned to the Assembly. While this was intended as comment on the recent abortion ban, it appears I've stumbled on some severe--and presumably unintended--consequences of GI Jane in the process. The Governor, I hope, will step in to return these measures to the Assembly for further work.